Thai Woman Nabbed At Suvarnabhumi Airport With 4Kg 'ice'

[Fozfromoz]

Canada has a minimum 7 years sentence for importing, maybe a little harsher for larger quantities. In any country upon arrival if (someone you know), you know your "friend", gets cold feet at immigration, before immigration has reviewed his passport and allowed entry, and he confesses that he is carrying something, technically he is not in the country, and a lawyer will argue that he gave it up beforehand. Usually the sentence will be less than 7 years, although the intention was to bring the drugs into the country, they were not brought in.

2 to 5 years.

I have often wondered how that works. A few years ago an Australian was transiting through Singapore ( I think from HK to Australia), And had a quantity of drugs on him. He didn't "enter" Singapore, but was nabbed, tried and hung. I thought as he wasn't entering Singapore, how could he be trafficking there?

Didn't help him anyway.

[FarangTalk]

She will never see the freedom again, if she plead guilty, get life imprisonnement, if not, death penalty.

Really ? Wow thats a hard lesson to learn.

There's no excuse for these people but I can't help feeling that some of these drug-mules are also victims of the drug trade. IMHO I would have thought a stiff sentence of say 5-10 years would be more than sufficient (personal opinion only mind)

You'd think the death penalty would be sufficient enough of a deterrent, but it isn't. They don't mess around with this kind of thing in other parts of the world. Look at Singapore. There are several signs in plain view of airport passengers that drug smuggling of any kind will result in the death penalty. But it still happens. IMHO, bring back extrajudicial shootings and be done with them.

Same in Bali although there its something along the lines of Welcome to Bali.....Warning DEATH PENALTY for Drug Smuggling ........Enjoy your Holiday

Quite confrontational at first glance and worrying but if you dont break the law everything is fine ...though there are obviously d**kheads around who dont think it applies to them

There is a huge billboard at Aranyaprathet saying exactly the same thing.

[hyperdimension]

Legalise drugs like yaa baa or yaa ice and watch the violent crime rate skyrocket.

Suggesting these kinds of chemicals are freely available to people with an average IQ in the 80s?

Really? Are you mad?

Legalizing drugs does not automatically make them freely available, just as alcohol, even though it is legal, is not freely available to children. Similarly, legal narcotics like hydrocodone are not freely available as a doctor's prescription is required. Legalization and then regulation is much better than prohibition and no regulation.

Anyway, I think legalization of currently illegal recreational drugs should start with the less harmful drugs like cannabis. In California cannabis can be legally bought in many shops.

[sysardman]

Legalise drugs like yaa baa or yaa ice and watch the violent crime rate skyrocket.

Suggesting these kinds of chemicals are freely available to people with an average IQ in the 80s?

Really? Are you mad?

Legalizing drugs does not automatically make them freely available, just as alcohol, even though it is legal, is not freely available to children. Similarly, legal narcotics like hydrocodone are not freely available as a doctor's prescription is required. Legalization and then regulation is much better than prohibition and no regulation.

Anyway, I think legalization of currently illegal recreational drugs should start with the less harmful drugs like cannabis. In California cannabis can be legally bought in many shops.

Thank you @hyperdimension for the voice of reason

People can argue about stamping out drugs till they are blue in the face, the fact is they will never go away and if people think the current situation of leaving the control of drugs to gangsters is OK then it's them that's mad. Traces of drugs have been found in Egyptian mummies so it's not a new phenomenon. Prohibition on the other hand is recently new and is used by politicians for controlling the masses and was started to deter workers becoming lazy through drug use. If you read about the Anglo-Chinese opium wars you will find that the British government were very active in the opium trade and had no qualms about selling it to anybody who wanted to buy (and this was only just over a hundred years ago). If we are now declaring ourselves as a civilised, enlightened society then we should also start to review our thinking about drugs. To insist that alcohol should be everybody's choice of recreational drug is narrow minded to say the least. Many of what we call artistic masterpieces were created by people taking mind altering substances and yet we always focus on the negative usually because somebody has had a bad reaction to dodgy substances.

[Rob8891]

IMHO, the best way to reduce drug-related crime, and drug-related deaths is to legalise drugs. I have reservations, but as long as there is demand (ie ALWAYS), we need the least damaging option.

Legalisation will allow better quality control and remove drugs from the hands of many criminal suppliers. This would (I hope) reduce or at very least stabilise cost to the users, and so in turn this would reduce the need for as much crime to fund users' habits. Naturally, governments would want their cut, via taxation, but then again, that would help support the spiralling costs to the nation of care for users.

OK.... bring on the flames.... I did not say this wasa perfect scheme, but we have an evil out there that we cannot beat, so the only option is to bring it in from the cold and try to minimise the damage caused.

£0.02

[sysardman]

IMHO, the best way to reduce drug-related crime, and drug-related deaths is to legalise drugs. I have reservations, but as long as there is demand (ie ALWAYS), we need the least damaging option.

Legalisation will allow better quality control and remove drugs from the hands of many criminal suppliers. This would (I hope) reduce or at very least stabilise cost to the users, and so in turn this would reduce the need for as much crime to fund users' habits. Naturally, governments would want their cut, via taxation, but then again, that would help support the spiralling costs to the nation of care for users.

OK.... bring on the flames.... I did not say this wasa perfect scheme, but we have an evil out there that we cannot beat, so the only option is to bring it in from the cold and try to minimise the damage caused.

£0.02

You were doing well until the evil part It's only in the minds of the terminally stupid that drugs are evil. Society is teeming to the brim with hypocrites. It's like the 'war on terror' - western governments are clawing hand over fist to sell WMDs to the east but then start crying terrorist when they use them. The same governments are covertly supporting and dealing in drugs but try to give us the 'what us' answers when questioned. I for one think I should have the freedom to choose what I put in my body and that should mean it shoukd have passed some sort of quality testing to make sure that what I paid for is what I get - same as any consumer product.

[Rob8891]

IMHO, the best way to reduce drug-related crime, and drug-related deaths is to legalise drugs. I have reservations, but as long as there is demand (ie ALWAYS), we need the least damaging option.

Legalisation will allow better quality control and remove drugs from the hands of many criminal suppliers. This would (I hope) reduce or at very least stabilise cost to the users, and so in turn this would reduce the need for as much crime to fund users' habits. Naturally, governments would want their cut, via taxation, but then again, that would help support the spiralling costs to the nation of care for users.

OK.... bring on the flames.... I did not say this wasa perfect scheme, but we have an evil out there that we cannot beat, so the only option is to bring it in from the cold and try to minimise the damage caused.

£0.02

You were doing well until the evil part It's only in the minds of the terminally stupid that drugs are evil. Society is teeming to the brim with hypocrites. It's like the 'war on terror' - western governments are clawing hand over fist to sell WMDs to the east but then start crying terrorist when they use them. The same governments are covertly supporting and dealing in drugs but try to give us the 'what us' answers when questioned. I for one think I should have the freedom to choose what I put in my body and that should mean it shoukd have passed some sort of quality testing to make sure that what I paid for is what I get - same as any consumer product.

Weaknesses in someone's argument are always highlighted when they have to resort to abuse. I resent your comment about terminally stupid, but beyond that, I am not going to react, and certainly not enter into a petty, childish slanging match. Nor do I see the direct benefit of diverting into WMD and terrorism if there is a line of argument to follow.

I have worked with young people all of my life and have seen far too many young lives blighted by drugs directly and/or indirectly. Sometimes this was due to the youngsters deciding to take drugs, but also it was due to young people being denied a childhood because their parents were addicts. Denying kids their childhood IS evil, and nothing you say, no insult you try to dream up will ever make me change my mind, based on 40 years of working with young people.

I have no issue with your comments about personal choice, and I think you would have seen this had you considered my post a bit more carefully. legalising drugs would put them on a par with other available drugs - tobacco and alcohol. We all have free choices there already. The big advantage in the case of my argument (and yours at least in your final sentence when you started to make sense), would be that one would KNOW what one wasputting in one's body, whereas at present, who can tell what has been used to pad out a deal? Some of the kids to whom I have alluded would probably still have parents alive if the drugs they had taken were certified and so not be in foster care somewhere. Some of those kids would not be living secret lives caring for addict parents. Some of those kids would still be alive. Further, there would be a lot less people whose lives had been blighted by being the victims of crime of various sort to fund the high-priced habit of buying illegal drugs.

Do NOT tell me that the effect of these impure (illegal) drugs, the greed of the traffickers and the crime generated to fund drug habits is not evil, because it is. We cannot beat drugs - I am not so sure I want to, but we can mitigate the worst of their effects to some extent.

[Nisa]

I have no issue with your comments about personal choice, and I think you would have seen this had you considered my post a bit more carefully. legalising drugs would put them on a par with other available drugs - tobacco and alcohol.

This is absolutely not true. Sure some drugs such as weed might fit into this category but nobody is proposing 711's start to sell heroin over the counter. Many many many more lives and families are ruined because drugs are criminalized than by actual illegal drugs. One can even argue that if drugs were legal (but controlled) there would be much less abuse and ability for those whose lives they are being damaged by drugs to get help. If you take a drug like heroin, it has no real ill effects on the body beyond the addiction but it is the aspects of it being illegal that cause most of the damage to people. And people addicted to heroin want off of it but it is very difficult to get help. In the US your regular doctor cannot even proscribe an opiate to an addict to help them ween off heroin. And if you go to a methodone clinic you'll find that does have a terrible effect on the body and is much harder to get off of. Yet in Canada they had great success giving out free heroin and administering daily to addicts in a doctor setting. These people didn't have to worry about od'ing, they were able to ween themselves off and they weren't out committing crimes to support their habit.

Drugs have been around a long long time and they will only be more to hit the market in the future and what is clear is that taking a criminal approach to the matter as a whole is not the answer and certainly not addressing the reason people get on drugs as they don't get on drugs because they are there, they do because they have an underlying issue which is making them want to escape the world which is another debate in terms of it being a good things or not. It seems as long as it is a Drug Company coming up with the drug and making a profit then it is okay to to have a drug be legal to mentally or physically escape your pain..

[Semper]

Another tragedy, but at least there is marginally less ice out there.

For a day or two.

[sysardman]

IMHO, the best way to reduce drug-related crime, and drug-related deaths is to legalise drugs. I have reservations, but as long as there is demand (ie ALWAYS), we need the least damaging option.

Legalisation will allow better quality control and remove drugs from the hands of many criminal suppliers. This would (I hope) reduce or at very least stabilise cost to the users, and so in turn this would reduce the need for as much crime to fund users' habits. Naturally, governments would want their cut, via taxation, but then again, that would help support the spiralling costs to the nation of care for users.

OK.... bring on the flames.... I did not say this wasa perfect scheme, but we have an evil out there that we cannot beat, so the only option is to bring it in from the cold and try to minimise the damage caused.

£0.02

You were doing well until the evil part It's only in the minds of the terminally stupid that drugs are evil. Society is teeming to the brim with hypocrites. It's like the 'war on terror' - western governments are clawing hand over fist to sell WMDs to the east but then start crying terrorist when they use them. The same governments are covertly supporting and dealing in drugs but try to give us the 'what us' answers when questioned. I for one think I should have the freedom to choose what I put in my body and that should mean it shoukd have passed some sort of quality testing to make sure that what I paid for is what I get - same as any consumer product.

Weaknesses in someone's argument are always highlighted when they have to resort to abuse. I resent your comment about terminally stupid, but beyond that, I am not going to react, and certainly not enter into a petty, childish slanging match. Nor do I see the direct benefit of diverting into WMD and terrorism if there is a line of argument to follow.

I have worked with young people all of my life and have seen far too many young lives blighted by drugs directly and/or indirectly. Sometimes this was due to the youngsters deciding to take drugs, but also it was due to young people being denied a childhood because their parents were addicts. Denying kids their childhood IS evil, and nothing you say, no insult you try to dream up will ever make me change my mind, based on 40 years of working with young people.

I have no issue with your comments about personal choice, and I think you would have seen this had you considered my post a bit more carefully. legalising drugs would put them on a par with other available drugs - tobacco and alcohol. We all have free choices there already. The big advantage in the case of my argument (and yours at least in your final sentence when you started to make sense), would be that one would KNOW what one wasputting in one's body, whereas at present, who can tell what has been used to pad out a deal? Some of the kids to whom I have alluded would probably still have parents alive if the drugs they had taken were certified and so not be in foster care somewhere. Some of those kids would not be living secret lives caring for addict parents. Some of those kids would still be alive. Further, there would be a lot less people whose lives had been blighted by being the victims of crime of various sort to fund the high-priced habit of buying illegal drugs.

Do NOT tell me that the effect of these impure (illegal) drugs, the greed of the traffickers and the crime generated to fund drug habits is not evil, because it is. We cannot beat drugs - I am not so sure I want to, but we can mitigate the worst of their effects to some extent.

Well the point I'm making (and I think you are trying to make it too) is that drugs (and guns) are not evil in themselves, it's the evil in people that try to manipulate and control society through use of drug laws or gun laws. Peoples lives are not ruined by the actual drugs but by the consequences imposed by laws that seek to make drug users criminals. I mentioned in a previous post that a friend of mine was a heroin addict and was one of the nicest people you could have met but he committed suicide because of constant police harrassment. Evil is in peoples minds and not inanimate objects. My comments about 'war on drugs' and 'war on terror' are that hypocrites in our western governments try to control guns and drugs at home but will sell both to other countries.

[hyperdimension]

they don't get on drugs because they are there, they do because they have an underlying issue which is making them want to escape the world

People take drugs for various reasons, for example:

• to treat disease or illness, including pain (e.g. acetominophen ("paracetamol"), hydrocodone)
  
• the user is addicted and needs it in order to feel normal or prevent feeling sick (e.g. nicotine, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine)
  
• to enhance penile erections (sildenafil ("Viagra", "Kamagra", "Penegra", "Sidegra"), tadalafil ("Cialis"))
  
• to experience life from a very different perspective than whilst sober (e.g. alcohol, cannabis, LSD and other psychedelics)
  
• to relax (e.g. cannabis)
  
• to enhace social interaction with other people (e.g. alcohol (but is only effective in low doses and only for initial hour), MDMA)
  
• to experience intense euphoria and have amazing fun (e.g. MDMA ("ecstasy"), LSD)
  
• to celebrate a special event (e.g. alcohol at a wedding; MDMA would be far more appropriate but is illegal)
  
• to treat mental illness, including addiction (e.g. LSD, ibogaine)
  
• to treat psychological trauma as part of psychotherapy (e.g. MDMA)
  
• to communicate with gods, ancestors or spirits (e.g. dimethyltryptamine (in ayahuasca), mescaline (in peyote))
  
• as part of religious ritual (e.g. alcoholic wine as the "blood of Christ")
  

[hyperdimension]

I'd like to also add:

• to feel more energetic for enhanced performance or productivity or sleep prevention (e.g. caffeine, amphetamines)
  
• to enhance confidence (alcohol, cocaine)
  
• to increase protein synthesis in the body for enhanced muscle growth (anabolic-androgen steroids)
  
• to induce sleep (e.g. benzodiazepines)
  

[Nisa]

in other words to escape a reality

[sysardman]

in other words to escape a reality

From what I see reality is overrated

[Nisa]

in other words to escape a reality

From what I see reality is overrated

Couldn't agree more.

[hyperdimension]

in other words to escape a reality

Not necessarily to "escape". "Reality" is whatever one perceives; drugs can alter that perception and allow the user to experience a different "reality". Is that bad?

[Nisa]

in other words to escape a reality

Not necessarily to "escape". "Reality" is whatever one perceives; drugs can alter that perception and allow the user to experience a different "reality". Is that bad?

No negative judgement from me regardless if escaping or altering one's reality but will say there isn't anybody who doesn't escape be it through drugs or something else. Just have to be sure to return when needed.

[hyperdimension]

No negative judgement from me regardless if escaping or altering one's reality but will say there isn't anybody who doesn't escape be it through drugs or something else. Just have to be sure to return when needed.

Doing something enjoyable isn't necessarily escaping. Is engaging in sexual activity purely for pleasure "escaping"? Is eating tasty food "escaping"? What are people who drink alcohol at a wedding "escaping" from?

There just seems to be too many unfounded negative stereotypes of recreational drugs and its users that have been built up by propaganda. All kinds of people around the world take drugs, both legal and illegal, and for a wide variety of reasons; the only common thing amongst all of them is that they take drugs. We can't assume that they are all trying to "escape reality".

I'd like to also say that it's wrong to use the word "abuse" when it comes to drugs as each chemical or plant can have a variety of uses, not just one proclaimed official use. e.g. alcohol is used in the medical industry as a disinfectant; does that mean that anyone who ingests it in order to derive some pleasure or alter their consciousness is an "abuser"? For some reason it seems that authorities want us to think that pharmaceutical drugs should only be taken to treat some ailment. e.g. silednafil being advertised as a treatment for erectile dysfunction, when in actual fact ordinary people can take it too for enhancement of penile erection which can make sexual activity more enjoyable. Just as people can opt to undergo cosmetic surgery to enhance their appearance, people should also be free to take drugs for enhancement or enjoyment and not be labeled as an "abuser" or some kind of victim who is trying to "escape".

There is very little correlation between legal status of drugs and their level of harmfulness. It is fallacious to categorize all drugs into one "bad" category; each drug is unique and so should be considered individually. Crystal methamphetamine ("ice") is quite harmful from what I've researched, so I am not at all an advocate for it as I am for cannabis and MDMA. But I am against prohibition of drugs in general as many other problems have arisen from it. Education with factual information is better, but unfounded propaganda has bred mistrust in authorities, so that mistrust may need to be repaired first. Once people know which drugs are extremely harmful and which aren't, they are likely to avoid the most harmful drugs and instead take the least harmful drugs (after legalization) if they so choose to take drugs. That would be much better than the situation that we have now - relatively harmless drugs prohibited leaving people little choice but to either comply with the law and take harmful drugs like alcohol and tobacco, or take the illegal route and be offered both harmful and relatively harmless drugs from the same dealer.

[cbrer]

You do wonder if they all pray to Buddha before the flight, hoping to not get caught.

I know I would.

And Allah, Jesus, Steve Jobs and the Tooth Fairy.

Just in case.

[Nisa]

No negative judgement from me regardless if escaping or altering one's reality but will say there isn't anybody who doesn't escape be it through drugs or something else. Just have to be sure to return when needed.

Doing something enjoyable isn't necessarily escaping. Is engaging in sexual activity purely for pleasure "escaping"? Is eating tasty food "escaping"? What are people who drink alcohol at a wedding "escaping" from?

You are the only one attributing escaping as being something negative 100 percent of the time.

[sysardman]

No negative judgement from me regardless if escaping or altering one's reality but will say there isn't anybody who doesn't escape be it through drugs or something else. Just have to be sure to return when needed.

There is very little correlation between legal status of drugs and their level of harmfulness. It is fallacious to categorize all drugs into one "bad" category; each drug is unique and so should be considered individually. Crystal methamphetamine ("ice") is quite harmful from what I've researched, so I am not at all an advocate for it as I am for cannabis and MDMA. But I am against prohibition of drugs in general as many other problems have arisen from it. Education with factual information is better, but unfounded propaganda has bred mistrust in authorities, so that mistrust may need to be repaired first. Once people know which drugs are extremely harmful and which aren't, they are likely to avoid the most harmful drugs and instead take the least harmful drugs (after legalization) if they so choose to take drugs. That would be much better than the situation that we have now - relatively harmless drugs prohibited leaving people little choice but to either comply with the law and take harmful drugs like alcohol and tobacco, or take the illegal route and be offered both harmful and relatively harmless drugs from the same dealer.

Just to add to the observations about harmful drugs, it's actually the governments attempts to prohibit the well know substances (cannabis, heroin, LSD, cocaine) that all these designer drugs have sprung up. Every time new legislation includes another drug then some enterprising person whips up a batch of some new drug to circumvent the law for a short period before that too is added to the growing list. The problem then is that these new drugs are unkown and therefore untested before they are pushed on to an eager market seeking a high. The Mr Bigs are not some shady guys on a street corner but businessmen who know how to market the stuff by giving them fancy names and also how to increase profits by cutting the drugs with bulking agents.

[Scully]

No negative judgement from me regardless if escaping or altering one's reality but will say there isn't anybody who doesn't escape be it through drugs or something else. Just have to be sure to return when needed.

Doing something enjoyable isn't necessarily escaping. Is engaging in sexual activity purely for pleasure "escaping"? Is eating tasty food "escaping"? What are people who drink alcohol at a wedding "escaping" from?

You are the only one attributing escaping as being something negative 100 percent of the time.

Did you read hyperdimension's excellent post?.

[sysardman]

No negative judgement from me regardless if escaping or altering one's reality but will say there isn't anybody who doesn't escape be it through drugs or something else. Just have to be sure to return when needed.

Doing something enjoyable isn't necessarily escaping. Is engaging in sexual activity purely for pleasure "escaping"? Is eating tasty food "escaping"? What are people who drink alcohol at a wedding "escaping" from?

You are the only one attributing escaping as being something negative 100 percent of the time.

Hey you guys you've been putting over some great arguments so don't spoil it by bickering over a silly point. Escapism is a weird thing and differs with the individual, some people get a massive rush jumping out of a plane but for most people common sense prevails and your head says 'no way Im doing that' so they smoke a bit of weed instead

[hyperdimension]

No negative judgement from me regardless if escaping or altering one's reality but will say there isn't anybody who doesn't escape be it through drugs or something else. Just have to be sure to return when needed.

Doing something enjoyable isn't necessarily escaping. Is engaging in sexual activity purely for pleasure "escaping"? Is eating tasty food "escaping"? What are people who drink alcohol at a wedding "escaping" from?

You are the only one attributing escaping as being something negative 100 percent of the time.

I didn't say such a thing. I said people take drugs for many different reasons, and provided a list of specific examples and corresponding drugs, and you summed it up as:

in other words to escape a reality

which is a very simplistic and technically incorrect view.

Most people understand that the word "escape" is usually from something negative, such as from something dangerous like a fire, or from something uncomfortable like pain. So when you said that people take drugs to escape a reality, it implies that you believe that people take drugs because they have been experiencing something negative, like pain or sadness. Escaping pain or sadness is only one of many reasons to why people take drugs, but I'd say that the far more common reason (apart from treating ailments), is for pleasure, even though they may still feel fine if they do not take it. So most drug users are not trying to "escape" anything, they are just enhancing or enriching their experience. It's natural for people to seek pleasurable experiences, which is why most sexual activity is not necessarily done for biological reproduction, but because it simply feels good to do it.

[Sayonarax]

Most of the time te police seem to know they are coming when they arrest people at airports. They wave too many people through without question for it not to be the case. I wonder why the mule doesn't employ a another mule that not even the people she works for knows about to be on the plane and the first mule picks up her bag instead of her own. The Police concentrating on getting their big drug bust wave everyone else through including the second mule and the first mule although stopped walks through clean and clear.

I think I'll write a script for Hawaii Five O instead of posting on Thaivisa....it wouldn't work in real life because the police aren't that stupid but it would on TV

Mules are childs play. Find some video on cartel engineering.

[Nisa]

You are the only one attributing escaping as being something negative 100 percent of the time.

I didn't say such a thing. I said people take drugs for many different reasons, and provided a list of specific examples and corresponding drugs, and you summed it up as:

in other words to escape a reality

which is a very simplistic and technically incorrect view.

Most people understand that the word "escape" is usually from something negative, such as from something dangerous like a fire, or from something uncomfortable like pain. So when you said that people take drugs to escape a reality, it implies that you believe that people take drugs because they have been experiencing something negative, like pain or sadness. Escaping pain or sadness is only one of many reasons to why people take drugs, but I'd say that the far more common reason (apart from treating ailments), is for pleasure, even though they may still feel fine if they do not take it. So most drug users are not trying to "escape" anything, they are just enhancing or enriching their experience. It's natural for people to seek pleasurable experiences, which is why most sexual activity is not necessarily done for biological reproduction, but because it simply feels good to do it.

Again, you are not only reading way too much into my comment about people using drugs illegally to escape reality but also going on and on about something that really serves little purpose.

[hyperdimension]

Again, you are not only reading way too much into my comment about people using drugs illegally to escape reality but also going on and on about something that really serves little purpose.

The purpose of my writings are to express my thoughts and perspectives based on my own research and my own (extremely enjoyable) past experience of drug usage, and to raise awareness of the current issues. I think I have achieved these to some degree, so regardless of whether you are able to counter my points when it comes to the topic of drugs, I thank you for providing me with such an opportunity.

[Nisa]

Again, you are not only reading way too much into my comment about people using drugs illegally to escape reality but also going on and on about something that really serves little purpose.

The purpose of my writings are to express my thoughts and perspectives based on my own research and my own (extremely enjoyable) past experience of drug usage, and to raise awareness of the current issues. I think I have achieved these to some degree, so regardless of whether you are able to counter my points when it comes to the topic of drugs, I thank you for providing me with such an opportunity.

More power to you and am glad you were able to share your personal thoughts but I think you could have done this without continuing to harp on my comment about people using drugs (illegally as is the topic) especially to escape reality, especially when you continued to feign it meant something it didn't and which I clearly never said was a negative thing.

[simple1]

@hyperdimension: I've noticed you have mentioned the use of MDMA in a few other topics. From the sounds of it you are a fairly regular user. I might be wrong, but I very much doubt you are acquiring pure MDMA, so be careful of the longer term effects. Whether you care or not is obviously "up to you". Hopefully you are not buying in Thailand as you cannot trust anyone in Thailand regards this activity, even your "best friend"

[hyperdimension]

@hyperdimension: I've noticed you have mentioned the use of MDMA in a few other topics. From the sounds of it you are a fairly regular user. I might be wrong, but I very much doubt you are acquiring pure MDMA, so be careful of the longer term effects. Whether you care or not is obviously "up to you". Hopefully you are not buying in Thailand as you cannot trust anyone in Thailand regards this activity, even your "best friend"

I've taken MDMA plenty of times (outside of Thailand), and based on the amazing and fun experiences that I've had, most were good quality (the effects I experienced were almost exactly the same as those listed here: MDMA). I used a test kit before ingestion to ensure that what I got contained MDMA (MDMA turns purple or black, methamphetamine turns orange). Only occasionally it turned out to be methamphetamine. I'm aware that there is very little tolerance to illegal drugs in Thailand, despite the scientific evidence that shows that many of the illegal drugs are much less harmful than legal and common drugs like alcohol or tobacco; so I avoid illegal drugs here and do not condone their use whilst in Thailand. I would like the laws to be changed though or at least for there to be more tolerance of soft drugs like Cannabis or MDMA like in Netherlands.